Founding Fathers' grammar challenged again

Did James Madison, pictured in this portrait by Gilbert Stuart, and the… (Courtesy of the METROPOLITAN…)

September 16, 2013

I thought it was fun to rule on Thomas Jefferson's grammar several weeks ago in my last Grammar Police column.

Jefferson emerged unscathed. I concluded that his use of "effect" in the Declaration of Independence was correct, at least by modern standards.

I never suspected this would lead to more readers challenging the Founding Fathers' grammar skills, but I got some great responses, and I decided to devote another column to them. My apologies to all the Grammar Police men and women who sent me other questions and comments. I'll try to get to them in the next edition.

I should have anticipated one of these Jefferson messages, since it relates to a show I saw many years ago on Broadway and later in another theatrical production and on TV.

This reader wrote, "Have you ever seen the stage or screen version of '1776?' If so, you'll remember the scene in which John Adams questions Jefferson's use of the word 'inalienable,' saying it should be 'unalienable.' When Jefferson doesn't agree, Adams implies that he [Adams] must be right, because he's a Harvard graduate. Jefferson replies something like, 'Well, I attended the College of William & Mary.'

"As a graduate of W&M, that's always been my favorite line. And, of course, we all know that the word stayed 'inalienable.' Take that, Harvard."

Actually, it didn't, although "inalienable" was the word Jefferson used in an early draft. I came across the site http://www.ushistory.org, created by the Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia, and it included an essay dealing directly with this issue.

It says, "The final version of the Declaration uses the word 'unalienable.' Some earlier drafts used the word 'inalienable,' which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

"According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

" 'The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.'"

The site goes on to break down the use of "inalienable" and "unalienable" in various copies of the Declaration, and concludes with a footnote contained in a 1922 book about the Declaration:

"The Rough Draft reads '[inherent &] inalienable.' There is no indication that Congress changed 'inalienable' to 'unalienable,' but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote 'unalienable.' Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. 'Unalienable' may have been the more customary form in the 18th century."

The fallout didn't stop with the Declaration. I also got messages about the U.S. Constitution — signed 226 years ago today — including one that contained a popular misconception. It read:

"There has been a debate about a phrase used by Jefferson. In the Constitution, he said, 'in order to form a more perfect union …' I learned that words like perfect, complete and unique cannot be more, because they are 'absolute.' It is hard to believe that someone like Jefferson would make a grammatical error. What is your opinion?"

Another reader questioned the use of "insure" in the same opening sentence, in the phrase "insure domestic Tranquility."

Let's get one thing out of the way first. Thomas Jefferson didn't write the U.S. Constitution. It was done by committee, but if you had to attribute it to any individual, it would be James Madison, whose ideas were most influential. That's why he's called the Father of the Constitution.

Jefferson? He was in France at the time.

As for the document itself, "ensure" would be the better word, although some people use them interchangeably. For me, "insure" is more properly used to refer to insurance coverage. It's not clear whether that distinction existed in the 18th century.

"More perfect" is more provocative. As a writer, I love those opening words: "We the people of the United States, in Order [there's lot of eccentric capitalization, but it was the style of the day] to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

In my research, I found "a more perfect union" referred to as the most famous grammatical error in history. But I agree with those who feel it's not a grammatical error at all.

"Perfect" is an exaggeration, in almost every case. The perfect woman. The perfect crime. The perfect marriage. With rare exceptions, it's unattainable. So "more perfect" — particularly in the context of a document that, as remarkable as it is, couldn't possibly be perfect — makes perfect sense. We want our union to be as perfect as possible.